Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Corbyn doesn't care if he loses the election and all those within the party who oppose him jump ship. He would be much happier to convert the party into an ideologically pure echo chamber for himself than actually aim to lead the country.

My General Election wish list is more or less what it was in 2015: 50 SNP MPs, and Nick Clegg getting a hard boot to the rear.

I've long resigned myself to a Tory victory, so Corbyn going down with the ship is no surprise or no big deal to me.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker admits that leaking details of his dinner with May was a serious mistake:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/jean-claude-juncker-admits-leak-downing-street-dinner-theresa

No gak Sherlock. y

To those of you who actually like the EU, doesn't it bother you that this wino is in such an important and highly paid position?

Junker is not diplomate. He's a liability to the EU.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker admits that leaking details of his dinner with May was a serious mistake:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/jean-claude-juncker-admits-leak-downing-street-dinner-theresa

No gak Sherlock.

To those of you who actually like the EU, doesn't it bother you that this wino is in such an important and highly paid position?

Speaking for myself, of course it bothers me. The man's clearly not the right person for the job.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker admits that leaking details of his dinner with May was a serious mistake:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/jean-claude-juncker-admits-leak-downing-street-dinner-theresa

No gak Sherlock.

To those of you who actually like the EU, doesn't it bother you that this wino is in such an important and highly paid position?

Speaking for myself, of course it bothers me. The man's clearly not the right person for the job.

Not really bothering.
Merkel has the say in the EU. She criticized Junker for his meeting with May last week.

I got my lib dem leaflets in the mailbox today. - 2 different kinds of leaflets, 1 A3, the other a folded A4.

The A3 one has everything on the A4 one, plus some other stuff. No real difference between them.

Pretty much every statement on both leaflets should have an annotation afterwards: *Citation Needed. And no, referring to an opinion piece on a newspaper isn't a citation, that's just shifting the buck.

Come on, Lib Dems, if you think Grammar Schools are a horrible idea, or horribly implemented, show me why. I don't even really know what a Grammar School *is* exactly.

Don't just say:

"Will Campaign for funding for our schools."
Lib Dems: *Tick*
Conservatives: X

That gives me no information at all. And I'm sure, at some point, the tories will campaign for funding for schools, it's a pointless statement. The degree of the campaigning though, and the extent of the funding, THAT's the question.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker admits that leaking details of his dinner with May was a serious mistake:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/jean-claude-juncker-admits-leak-downing-street-dinner-theresa

No gak Sherlock.

To those of you who actually like the EU, doesn't it bother you that this wino is in such an important and highly paid position?

Speaking for myself, of course it bothers me. The man's clearly not the right person for the job.

Not really bothering.
Merkel has the say in the EU. She criticized Junker for his meeting with May last week.

This guy is meant to be a senior figure in the EU in a very promint role.
No, you aint the guy for the job if your judgement is that bad.

i don't like EU but this guy is just a liability it seems.

did he drink too much or somthing?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker admits that leaking details of his dinner with May was a serious mistake:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/jean-claude-juncker-admits-leak-downing-street-dinner-theresa

No gak Sherlock.

To those of you who actually like the EU, doesn't it bother you that this wino is in such an important and highly paid position?

Speaking for myself, of course it bothers me. The man's clearly not the right person for the job.

Not really bothering.
Merkel has the say in the EU. She criticized Junker for his meeting with May last week.

Whilst Juncker may or may not be a bit of a knob, he is not "Teh EU". He does not control the EU or the member states, whose individual governments have significant influence over the course of action.

From that angle, Juncker doesn't bother me to a great degree. He's just one guy, not the God-Emperor.

This guy is meant to be a senior figure in the EU in a very promint role.
No, you aint the guy for the job if your judgement is that bad.

i don't like EU but this guy is just a liability it seems.

did he drink too much or somthing?

As I already said, this guy is a liability. But he cannot decide something on his own. The EU has better negotiators like Timmermanns and Mogherini.
The brexit negotiations will be led by Merkel and other influential premier ministers like the French Macron.

Apparently May's team cottoned on to all the criticism about her stage managed appearances and have started letting her have interviews with actual punters as of yesterday, according to the Guardian.

Also a very interesting opinion piece in there today about how corbyn this and brexit there is still ignoring the underlying structural trembling in the Labour party; there's an interview with a bloke in Wales talking about how his mum and her dad have always voted Labour but he just doesn't care anymore. To him, Corbyn, Miliband, Borwn and Blair all roll into one posh professional politician blur of a machine, so he couldn't care less. The article rightfully points out that with their loyal zombie voterbase starting to die off and none of the new working class giving two hoots about it, Labour is in serious trouble whatever the election result.

 Ketara wrote:
To him, Corbyn, Miliband, Borwn and Blair all roll into one posh professional politician blur of a machine, so he couldn't care less. The article rightfully points out that with their loyal zombie voterbase starting to die off and none of the new working class giving two hoots about it, Labour is in serious trouble whatever the election result.

Reminds me of my impression:

"Rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power. " One could also add in some thoughts relating to 'double dealing, manipulation and backstabbing' conversed with the stereotypical Tory equivalent of, "their Great Grandparents double dealing, manipulation and backstabbing."

It really does seem a ripe time for newer parties, - an SNP equivalent in England. But we had this discussion before, so.... Meh, no point retreading old ground.

 Ketara wrote:
Apparently May's team cottoned on to all the criticism about her stage managed appearances and have started letting her have interviews with actual punters as of yesterday, accoridng to the Guardian.

Also a very interesting opinion piece in there today about how corbyn this and brexit there is still ignoring the underlying structural trembling in the Labour party; there's an interview the journalist with a bloke in Wales talking about how his mum and her dad have always voted Labour but he just doesn't care anymore. To him, Corbyn, Miliband, Borwn and Blair all roll into one posh professional politician blur of a machine, so he couldn't care less. The article rightfully points out that with their loyal zombie voterbase starting to die off and none of the new working class giving two hoots about it, Labour is in serious trouble whatever the election result.

This piece?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/labour-wales-industry

Seems to me that Labour has moved away from their 'working-class'... and maybe even moving a wee be more leftish politically.

Aye, that's the one.

 Compel wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
To him, Corbyn, Miliband, Borwn and Blair all roll into one posh professional politician blur of a machine, so he couldn't care less. The article rightfully points out that with their loyal zombie voterbase starting to die off and none of the new working class giving two hoots about it, Labour is in serious trouble whatever the election result.

Reminds me of my impression:

"Rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power. " One could also add in some thoughts relating to 'double dealing, manipulation and backstabbing' conversed with the stereotypical Tory equivalent of, "their Great Grandparents double dealing, manipulation and backstabbing."

It really does seem a ripe time for newer parties, - an SNP equivalent in England. But we had this discussion before, so.... Meh, no point retreading old ground.

The problem is how do you implement this? The system is rigged so that unless you have the money or supported by a major party your chance of being elected is minimal simply because those that are paid poorly simply can't afford to drop everything, campaign and then find they haven't got anywhere and are up to the eyeballs in debt. How are you expecting a new party arise unless they have a major backer. The only party that did grow was UKIP and they had significant multimillionaire backers who viewed the EU as holding back their profits over awkward things like human rights, environmental concerns and so on. Now Tories have become newUKIP old UKIP are being dropped like a bag of manure because the Tories now give them what they want. The mantra of 'evil EU' (and lets not forget the proportion of the population that just don't want immigration despite the fact it's the only way it keeps the country's future sustainable long term) has got into the psyche of enough people that it swung the vote the way they wanted.

so first of all May was only allowing pre selected/approved questions from the press

-- which didn't go down well -- and then changed at the next event to the usual format.

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/861915464976527360

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/861916012442251264

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/861937452990291969

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themediablog.co.uk%2F

Corbyn meanwhile has now banned Buzzfeed from future events

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/buzzfeed-news-has-been-denied-access-to-campaign-events?utm_term=.hj9oyy0Eeq#.qk65EELpV6

.. in some good Brexit related news....

https://www.nytimes.com/times-journeys/travel/brexit-means-brexit/

The NYT is offering a Brexit-themed six-day tour of London for $6,000 a head.

... ..... one might suggest there;s a few things more interesting than that one can find to do in London


In further good news



phew !

.. Oh and May has come out in favour of Fox hunting

"They" have done a good job the world over to put the myth "worker's rights= economic ruin" though. That's the justification people over here have for voting for our local conservatives, despite more than a decade of transparent corruption and debt.

 whembly wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Apparently May's team cottoned on to all the criticism about her stage managed appearances and have started letting her have interviews with actual punters as of yesterday, accoridng to the Guardian.

Also a very interesting opinion piece in there today about how corbyn this and brexit there is still ignoring the underlying structural trembling in the Labour party; there's an interview the journalist with a bloke in Wales talking about how his mum and her dad have always voted Labour but he just doesn't care anymore. To him, Corbyn, Miliband, Borwn and Blair all roll into one posh professional politician blur of a machine, so he couldn't care less. The article rightfully points out that with their loyal zombie voterbase starting to die off and none of the new working class giving two hoots about it, Labour is in serious trouble whatever the election result.

This piece?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/labour-wales-industry

Seems to me that Labour has moved away from their 'working-class'... and maybe even moving a wee be more leftish politically.

It's not quite as simple as this. There's also a lot of support by young people of the Labour party. The problem is that they don't vote. There's a suggestion that if 30% of the youth population actually voted the way the polls indicate then Labour would win convincingly. The problem is convincing enough to go out and vote.

However it's not just the Labour party that have an issue with their future. Labour's current appeal is to less of it's old core roots, but there are less and less of these people (and will have to move more central in the future if it is to survive as a political firce). However it does have a lot of grass root support. On the other hand the Tories have the opposite issue - they generally appeal to the middle earners that get along just fine but hate the thought of having to pay anymore to the state than they have to (effectively a 'selfish' vote). However their grass root support is dwindling because they are all old and dying off making them ever more reliant on rich sponsors and 'groomed' politicians. This is making both sides ever more pandering to a certain group of people at the expense of the populace as a whole. The only party that is growing and is generally youthful is the Lib Dems at the moment (and SNP if you include Scotland).

It's not just a revamp of the parties we need, ones that actually respect the populace rather than see them as a tool in their own never-ending power plays but we need a complete shake up of the political system as a whole to re-engage vast swathes of the populace.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is how do you implement this? The system is rigged so that unless you have the money or supported by a major party your chance of being elected is minimal simply because those that are paid poorly simply can't afford to drop everything, campaign and then find they haven't got anywhere and are up to the eyeballs in debt. How are you expecting a new party arise unless they have a major backer. .

Errr....I'm afraid that if this were even remotely accurate, Labour simply wouldn't exist.

Remember, the people of say, 1900, had an absolute fraction of the wealth, power, and communication capabilities that we do today. Yet they managed to build a movement and several political parties which culminated in Attlee's government. We talk about Kickstarter now, bit political movements were the real early stars of crowdfunding!

If Labour meant anything at all to the working, or even the middle classes in reality, they'd stick their hands willingly into their pockets to affect change. They don't because they have no faith in the party. If even all those people spamming facebook/twitter/the BBC with specious arguments about Corbyn being the next coming of christ gave a £1 for every ten posts, Labour wouldn't be in a financial hole. But they don't, because they don't like him /that much!

Complaining about Tories is easy. Actually forgoing a coffee or video game to help prop up a political party? Nah.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is how do you implement this? The system is rigged so that unless you have the money or supported by a major party your chance of being elected is minimal simply because those that are paid poorly simply can't afford to drop everything, campaign and then find they haven't got anywhere and are up to the eyeballs in debt. How are you expecting a new party arise unless they have a major backer. .

Errr....I'm afraid that if this were even remotely accurate, Labour simply wouldn't exist.

Remember, the people of say, 1900, had an absolute fraction of the wealth, power, and communication capabilities that we do today. Yet they managed to build a movement and several political parties which culminated in Attlee's government. We talk about Kickstarter now, bit political movements were the real early stars of crowdfunding!

If Labour meant anything at all to the working, or even the middle classes in reality, they'd stick their hands willingly into their pockets to affect change. They don't because they have no faith in the party. If even all those people spamming facebook/twitter/the BBC with specious arguments about Corbyn being the next coming of christ gave a £1 for every ten posts, Labour wouldn't be in a financial hole. But they don't, because they don't like him /that much!

Complaining about Tories is easy. Actually forgoing a coffee or video game to help prop up a political party? Nah.

Its also leaders who are inspiring people to part with there money...

We had a rather lack of those.

oh yes :

pics from a fund raising email from the Tories




here's the speech he made :

http://uk.businessinsider.com/full-text-emmanuel-macron-first-speech-president-2017-5

.. can you see where he claims that then ...?

I'll forgive the somewhat OOO habit of someone claiming/using a cabinet position with regards to a party fund raising missive but well....

He has NO part in the negotians --- that's why EU has a specific team so no one country can direct favourable terms.

..

 reds8n wrote:
so first of all May was only allowing pre selected/approved questions from the press

-- which didn't go down well -- and then changed at the next event to the usual format.

Corbyn meanwhile has now banned Buzzfeed from future events

Seems like they are both taking tips form Trump then. It's really appalling though that the press are forced to ask staged 'easy to answer' questions on both sides. This is becoming less and less like democracy and some dystopian country. What happened to freedom of speech? I suppose the Tories were right that they were indeed taking back control (of hope) and replacing it with fear.

The NYT is offering a Brexit-themed six-day tour of London for $6,000 a head.

... ..... one might suggest there;s a few things more interesting than that one can find to do in London

It's a lot of money, but they probably do get a t-shirt where they are "pointing a laughing at England".

.. Oh and May has come out in favour of Fox hunting

Brilliant... what was this about Brexit and voting Tories would maintain the environmental controls. Maybe she should be let off in a middle of a field and chased down by a pack of hounds hunting for blood and then tear here limb from limb just so she could experience what a fox must go through.

I think the problem is that people forget that politics is a very broad spectrum, and that a lot of people on the left don't get along or have aligned goals. What is good for one branch of the left can be bad for another.

To seize on one example right now, take immigration. The more well-educated and employed types tend to love immigration. Love of humanity, boost to the economy, cultural acceptance for all, etcetc. Lots of nice positive good wholesome moral Liberal principles that it ties into.

To the actual working classes, what they see is more along the line of increased competition for jobs, a weakening of the Union, their high street suddenly covered in foreign signs (Polski sklep, etc), a bunch of foreign criminals muscling in on the local bad boys (who even if they didn't like, at least they went to school with them), rent prices going up due to the increased economy/demand, and so on.

So a good chunk of the left wing working class, although they despise the Tories, voted Brexit. I mention that one because it's the most obvious sign of disconnect recently between what the left wingers who run the political parties like, and what the left wingers who always used to do the grassroots like.

Corbyn has more in common with Tim Farron than he does Clement Attlee, or even Bob Crow. He's a well educated, liberal London luvvie with a slightly morbid fascination with the Hard left (that is to say, the Marxist/Soviet end of things). He hangs around at 'Stop the War' conferences and grows nice wholesome organic vegetables in his little private plot whilst reading of dark and dangerous places. And there's nothing wrong with that. But he's just as distanced from the people who made the Labour Party what it was as Blair and the neo-Labour pro- business plastic political types were, just in a different way. Politics isn't just a simple graph, where you go one way or the other. Just because Corbyn isn't right wing doesn't mean that he's the same type of left-wing as the working classes of Great Britain have historically inclined towards.

I don't know if there's anyone left in any of the parties who actually champions British socialism anymore. But until Corbyn moves, we won't see if they're hiding in the Labour party or not.

 Ketara wrote:

Errr....I'm afraid that if this were even remotely accurate, Labour simply wouldn't exist.

Remember, the people of say, 1900, had an absolute fraction of the wealth, power, and communication capabilities that we do today. Yet they managed to build a movement and several political parties which culminated in Attlee's government. We talk about Kickstarter now, bit political movements were the real early stars of crowdfunding!

You can't seriously consider that the 1900's are the same as today? Yes Labour started as a grass roots campaign but then the costs of doing that were not prohibitive because there was already support for such a party, it was just they were separated by travel time rather than disparate views that prevented them merging.

However we are talking about a new party today. It would be easy to contact people but getting enough to actually join a new party (and noting there aren't many niches left) would be a hell of a job. If we had a president like France then it would be easier, but here you have to support multiple candidates, advertising campaigns and so on. You would need significant backing to get things going.

If Labour meant anything at all to the working, or even the middle classes in reality, they'd stick their hands willingly into their pockets to affect change. They don't because they have no faith in the party. If even all those people spamming facebook/twitter/the BBC with specious arguments about Corbyn being the next coming of christ gave a £1 for every ten posts, Labour wouldn't be in a financial hole. But they don't, because they don't like him /that much!

I think you are bit behind the times on this one. Labour's finances are improving now. I read an article (can't find it now damn it - it talked about the strange circumstances Labour were in in that overall popularity was low but income was increasing) that they are now out of debt because of an increase income. Labour's income in 2015 was £51.5m compared to just under £40m in the previous year. So people are still willing to fund Labour one way or another.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You can't seriously consider that the 1900's are the same as today? Yes Labour started as a grass roots campaign but then the costs of doing that were not prohibitive because there was already support for such a party, it was just they were separated by travel time rather than disparate views that prevented them merging.

However we are talking about a new party today. It would be easy to contact people but getting enough to actually join a new party (and noting there aren't many niches left) would be a hell of a job. If we had a president like France then it would be easier, but here you have to support multiple candidates, advertising campaigns and so on. You would need significant backing to get things going.

Please tell me you aren't seriously insisting, that it is harder to start or gain backing for a successful left-wing political movement today than in 1900. Please.

 Ketara wrote:


To the actual working classes, what they see is more along the line of increased competition for jobs, a weakening of the Union, their high street suddenly covered in foreign signs (Polski sklep, etc), a bunch of foreign criminals muscling in on the local bad boys (who even if they didn't like, at least they went to school with them), rent prices going up due to the increased economy/demand, and so on.

Except some of these are nothing to do with the EU/freedom of movement and trade but have been spun to deflect the populaces anger and blame. Both competition for jobs and increased rent prices etc are due to political UK mismanagement and deflection. If you look at the US, a country *built* on immigration, it now has the largest economy in the world. A larger work force actually drives the economy because you can support smaller proportional industries. if 0.01% of the population plays wargames then a population of 1 million supports a wargaming population of about 10,000; if immigration grows that to 10million then suddenly you have 100,000 wargamers. That allows the support of a much larger industry and hence jobs and growth. The failing has occurred because some people were left behind by society and government whereas they should have been given every assistance to develop and move forward so they could also gain from the extra wealth. House rents are going up because house building is (and has been for some time) deliberately held back to boost profits (hence creating an artificial shortage). We are now in a situation where house building is at its lowest since the 1920s http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/house-building-tories-labour-healey_uk_5910b87ce4b0d5d9049eb915?708 and still declining. All the housing policies have done is move more money/profits into the house builders hands. Yet politicians (especially Tories) have been happy to blame the EU and this seeped into a proportion of the populaces views where by now thinks like foreign signs/UK criminals are 'better than EU ones'/weakening of the union is just a bigotry and racism undercurrent. Yet it was used as a tool by politicians (and still is) to create more fear and anger in a certain element of the populace so they are manipulated to vote a certain way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

You can't seriously consider that the 1900's are the same as today? Yes Labour started as a grass roots campaign but then the costs of doing that were not prohibitive because there was already support for such a party, it was just they were separated by travel time rather than disparate views that prevented them merging.

However we are talking about a new party today. It would be easy to contact people but getting enough to actually join a new party (and noting there aren't many niches left) would be a hell of a job. If we had a president like France then it would be easier, but here you have to support multiple candidates, advertising campaigns and so on. You would need significant backing to get things going.

Please tell me you aren't seriously insisting, that it is harder to start or gain backing for a successful left-wing political movement today than in 1900. Please.

No what I am saying is that, as you pointed out, there were already groups of people that had fundamentally the same views but were separated by distance. Hence it was likely only a matter of time as communications improved that these groups merged.

What we are talking about here is a brand new party that is distinctly different from any of the others (so Labour/Tory/UKIP/LDs/Green etc) in such a reasonable fashion to be able to gain a foothold in parliament and that this would require vast sums of money to achieve to both advertise as well as employ candidates, marketing managers, place adverts and so on.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is how do you implement this? The system is rigged so that unless you have the money or supported by a major party your chance of being elected is minimal simply because those that are paid poorly simply can't afford to drop everything, campaign and then find they haven't got anywhere and are up to the eyeballs in debt. How are you expecting a new party arise unless they have a major backer. .

Errr....I'm afraid that if this were even remotely accurate, Labour simply wouldn't exist.

Remember, the people of say, 1900, had an absolute fraction of the wealth, power, and communication capabilities that we do today. Yet they managed to build a movement and several political parties which culminated in Attlee's government. We talk about Kickstarter now, bit political movements were the real early stars of crowdfunding!

If Labour meant anything at all to the working, or even the middle classes in reality, they'd stick their hands willingly into their pockets to affect change. They don't because they have no faith in the party. If even all those people spamming facebook/twitter/the BBC with specious arguments about Corbyn being the next coming of christ gave a £1 for every ten posts, Labour wouldn't be in a financial hole. But they don't, because they don't like him /that much!

Complaining about Tories is easy. Actually forgoing a coffee or video game to help prop up a political party? Nah.

Given that New Old Labour's renaissance was built on the votes of the cut-price £3 membership, I would say you have some financial logic in your argument.

One of Labour's problems is that the parliamentary party, backed by the bulk of the full-price activists (local party committees, and so on) don't believe in Korben and basically have been railroaded into his leadership by the cheap-rate votes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


To the actual working classes, what they see is more along the line of increased competition for jobs, a weakening of the Union, their high street suddenly covered in foreign signs (Polski sklep, etc), a bunch of foreign criminals muscling in on the local bad boys (who even if they didn't like, at least they went to school with them), rent prices going up due to the increased economy/demand, and so on.

Except some of these are nothing to do with the EU/freedom of movement and trade but have been spun to deflect the populaces anger and blame. Both competition for jobs and increased rent prices etc are due to political UK mismanagement and deflection. If you look at the US, a country *built* on immigration, it now has the largest economy in the world. A larger work force actually drives the economy because you can support smaller proportional industries. if 0.01% of the population plays wargames then a population of 1 million supports a wargaming population of about 10,000; if immigration grows that to 10million then suddenly you have 100,000 wargamers. That allows the support of a much larger industry and hence jobs and growth. The failing has occurred because some people were left behind by society and government whereas they should have been given every assistance to develop and move forward so they could also gain from the extra wealth. House rents are going up because house building is (and has been for some time) deliberately held back to boost profits (hence creating an artificial shortage). We are now in a situation where house building is at its lowest since the 1920s http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/house-building-tories-labour-healey_uk_5910b87ce4b0d5d9049eb915?708 and still declining. All the housing policies have done is move more money/profits into the house builders hands. Yet politicians (especially Tories) have been happy to blame the EU and this seeped into a proportion of the populaces views where by now thinks like foreign signs/UK criminals are 'better than EU ones'/weakening of the union is just a bigotry and racism undercurrent. Yet it was used as a tool by politicians (and still is) to create more fear and anger in a certain element of the populace so they are manipulated to vote a certain way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

You can't seriously consider that the 1900's are the same as today? Yes Labour started as a grass roots campaign but then the costs of doing that were not prohibitive because there was already support for such a party, it was just they were separated by travel time rather than disparate views that prevented them merging.

However we are talking about a new party today. It would be easy to contact people but getting enough to actually join a new party (and noting there aren't many niches left) would be a hell of a job. If we had a president like France then it would be easier, but here you have to support multiple candidates, advertising campaigns and so on. You would need significant backing to get things going.

Please tell me you aren't seriously insisting, that it is harder to start or gain backing for a successful left-wing political movement today than in 1900. Please.

No what I am saying is that, as you pointed out, there were already groups of people that had fundamentally the same views but were separated by distance. Hence it was likely only a matter of time as communications improved that these groups merged.

What we are talking about here is a brand new party that is distinctly different from any of the others (so Labour/Tory/UKIP/LDs/Green etc) in such a reasonable fashion to be able to gain a foothold in parliament and that this would require vast sums of money to achieve to both advertise as well as employ candidates, marketing managers, place adverts and so on.

Ignoring the real fascists and communists, who don't have any mass appeal at the moment, the established parties span the viable political spectrum. Where do you see your proposed new party fitting in, in terms of real policy aims?

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Ignoring the real fascists and communists, who don't have any mass appeal at the moment, the established parties span the viable political spectrum. Where do you see your proposed new party fitting in, in terms of real policy aims?

Erm I wasn't? This was a linked conversations started by Compel stating we need new parties and I was querying where they would fit in and how they would gain enough support and money given that the system is weighted against new parties (but if we had presidential elections for example it would be easier as per the France elections).

On the other hand if I was to start a new party I think I would go for Total Annihilation party. My manifesto is that we are trying to kill ourselves as quickly as possible anyway through poisoning the planet, fighting over resources and generally being obnoxious to each other. Hence lets put everyone out their misery and launch all the nukes in the world and remove any trace of the human race. It would be a new mass extinction event but the world will carry on and somethings will survive and hopefully another creature will evolve and learn from our mistakes. What do you think?

Alternatively it could be the Doom party which would be to open gates to hell and let all the demonspawn in. It might make the world a nicer place to live in...

For non-Scottish dakka members, let me tell you why the Labour party is dying.

I'll tell you about Glasgow and the West of Scotland. An area Labour dominated for 50+ years.

Here's a small sample of what went wrong:

I'm the head of Council X. Council houses need to be fixed. My brother has a building firm. Yeah, it'll cost the taxpayer more, and the other bid tenders are better, but he's my brother and family comes first. I'm sure you understand...

Scottish Labour: we oppose Trident! London: No you don't. Scottish Labour: We love trident!

Why did we nominate this person to be the MP for Constituency X? Yes, he's hopeless, he's missed votes in the House of Commons because he was too drunk, but hey, I went to school with this guy...

And so on and so on...

Corbyn will bury the Labour party, but it was dead long before he became leader...

New Labour killed Labour.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
New Labour killed Labour.

I used to be a Labour voter, and take it from me, the Labour party was heading for trouble even in the Kinnock/John Smith days.

It was an empty shell back then, and the fact that it was an empty shell is the reason why Blair and Campbell could hijack it and shift it to the right.

For sure, Blair could win elections, but he had no idea what to do with that power. It's like a dog chasing a car. Once it catches one, it's clueless on the next move...

The irony is that Blair could win elections, but had no policy. Corbyn has policy, but can't win an election.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For non-Scottish dakka members, let me tell you why the Labour party is dying.

I'll tell you about Glasgow and the West of Scotland. An area Labour dominated for 50+ years.

Here's a small sample of what went wrong:

I'm the head of Council X. Council houses need to be fixed. My brother has a building firm. Yeah, it'll cost the taxpayer more, and the other bid tenders are better, but he's my brother and family comes first. I'm sure you understand...

Given what I think you are implying I'm assuming then that both the Councillor and the brother's firm were prosecuted for fraud (which is a police matter). There are very strict rules relating to procurement and if they are in breach of these then they are liable to go to jail (and all other bidders will be able to claim costs from the Council). Is this what happened?

Scottish Labour: we oppose Trident! London: No you don't. Scottish Labour: We love trident!

Trident is always a tricky issue. It gives people elsewhere a warm fluffy feeling that MAD practices keep them safe (not really). It gives local people the twitches knowing they are in the path of a direct hit if things do go south. They do bring in a lot of technical expertise and specialist jobs. It's a waste of money and could be better spent elsewhere (lets say a space program).

Why did we nominate this person to be the MP for Constituency X? Yes, he's hopeless, he's missed votes in the House of Commons because he was too drunk, but hey, I went to school with this guy...

This is a party issue and should be sorted, but it's an ongoing issue that the flaws of friends and family are ignored; that's an evolved trait. How many parents think their children are angels when in reality they are spoilt disruptive little brats in reality? However it can also be a sign of mental illness and this is something we could all fall prey to.

Corbyn will bury the Labour party, but it was dead long before he became leader...

Labour could reinvent themselves, but they are never going to achieve much by sitting on the far left because it will never appeal to centre right part of the population that believe that the money they earn should be all there's to spend (but quite happily whine about the NHS when the service they need is no longer there and never put the two together). It's not like these people are bad, it's just a natural evolutionary trait to keep resources for the local group just like all apes do (at a very basic level).